Trial Verdicts and Results
Case:
JNE Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Moldone Experts a/a/o Jacqueline Varela v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Peregonza The Attorneys, PLLC
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled JNE Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Moldone Experts a/a/o Jacqueline Varela v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage of Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to a mold assessment conducted at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment, arguing that the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor, that the assignor’s loss was the result of constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water and therefore excluded form coverage under the policy, and that the mold assessment conducted by Plaintiff would only be covered if the costs were a result of a covered peril. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.
Case:
Carolina & Abraham Anzardo v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Grande Law, P.A.
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Carolina & Abraham Anzardo v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for their claim for damage to their property resulting from a roof leak. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, maintaining the position that the damage to the roof pre-existed the claimed date of loss, and there was no evidence of a wind created opening in the roof that allowed rainwater to enter the property. Upon receipt of Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.
Case:
Water Tech Restoration, LLC a/a/o Olga Mederos v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Levy & Partners, PLLC
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Water Tech Restoration, LLC a/a/o Olga Mederos v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, challenging the validity of the purported assignment, contending that it failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152, was therefore invalid and unenforceable, and thus rendered Plaintiff without standing to maintain the lawsuit. Defendant’s motion was granted, without prejudice, as the purported assignment agreement did not contain the requisite written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, attempting to cure the deficiency. Defendant filed its second motion to dismiss, again challenging the validity of the purported assignment, and Plaintiff’s standing to file suit. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s second motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.
Case:
South Florida Restoration Service, LLC a/a/o Barbara Cabanas v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Velasquez & Associates, P.A.
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled South Florida Restoration Service, LLC a/a/o Barbara Cabanas v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, challenging the validity of the purported assignment, contending that it failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152, was therefore invalid and unenforceable, and thus rendered Plaintiff without standing to maintain the lawsuit. Defendant’s motion was granted, without prejudice, as the purported assignment agreement did not contain the necessary language, or the requisite written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, attempting to cure the deficiencies. Defendant filed its second motion to dismiss, contending that Plaintiff’s purported assignment agreement still failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152, and was therefore invalid and unenforceable. Just hours before the hearing on Defendant’s second motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.
Case:
Orlando Water Mitigation, LLC a/a/o Nino Garboza & Annamora Vargas v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Louis Law Group, PLLC
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Taylor Montanari, Esq., secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Orlando Water Mitigation, LLC a/a/o Nino Garboza & Annamora Vargas v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, challenging the validity of the purported assignment, contending that it failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152, was therefore invalid and unenforceable, and thus rendered Plaintiff without standing to maintain the lawsuit. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.
Case:
The Kidwell Group, LLC d/b/a Air Quality Assessors of Florida a/a/o Chamile Rosa. V. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Krapf Legal, P.A.
Result:
Dismissal
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Taylor Montanari, Esq., secured a dismissal in the matter styled The Kidwell Group, LLC d/b/a Air Quality Assessors of Florida a/a/o Chamile Rosa v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit pursuant to an assignment of benefits alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for its claim for payment for the preparation of an engineering report. Defendant filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment, contending that the preparation of an engineering report was not covered by the policy, and that Plaintiff’s purported assignment agreement failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152, was therefore invalid and unenforceable, and thus rendered Plaintiff without standing to maintain the lawsuit. Plaintiff dismissed the case, and reimbursed Defendant for the costs incurred defending the case. Read More.
Case:
Timothy Lillis, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Margaret Solomon, Timothy Lillis, individually and as Next Friend of B.L., a minor v. Alon Blum
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Leto Law Firm (Matthew P. Leto)
Result:
Appeal Successful
Summary
Jacksonville Associate Jack Garwood secured an appellate victory after Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Notice of Confession of Error on July 31, 2023. At the trial court level, the court had held that service of process had been properly effectuated under Florida’s substituted service of process statutes. However, it was clear from the record that Plaintiff had not strictly complied with the substituted service statutes as required. The substituted service of process statutes are to be strictly complied with because of due process concerns. After reviewing the cases cited in the initial Appellate Brief, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he could not say that the statutes had been strictly complied with. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel referred to one of the cases in Appellant’s brief—Monaco v. Nealon, 810 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)—as one he could not get past. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he has never confessed error before, but that due to the cases cited in Appellant’s Brief, he had to in this case. Read More
Case:
Sage Beach Condominium Association v. PMG Driftwood, LLC, et al
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Ball Janik, LLP (Gabriel Coelho)
Result:
Summary Judgment
Summary
Plaintiff, Sage Beach Condominium Association, brought this action against 27 parties for alleged construction defects relating to the construction of the Association’s two condominium buildings. Our client, New Door Installation Co., installed exterior metal doors, frames and hardware. Plaintiff claimed that the materials were defectively installed and in violation of the Florida Building Code due to the existence of corrosion on the door surfaces, frames, and hardware. In addition, the general contractor, Glenewinkel Construction Company, asserted cross claims against New Door for violation of the Florida Building Code, breach of contract, and common law indemnification. Plaintiff’s expert, Toby Maxwell, P.E., and Glenewinkel’s expert, Donald Rataj, R.A., testified that the doors were properly installed, and that the corrosion was due to the exposure from the harsh coastal environment, as the condominium buildings are located on Hollywood Beach. Plaintiff, in an attempt to defeat summary judgment, provided an affidavit from Mr. Maxwell that contradicted his deposition testimony and claimed that the exterior metal doors were not installed correctly. The Court granted New Door’s motion for summary judgment stating, “This kind of change in testimony issue, on the eve of summary judgment motions, is exactly why our Supreme Court changed the Florida rule on summary judgment to align with the Federal rule.” Read More.
Case:
Gladys Torres v. Mazal Investments 21, LLC and Coral Gate West Condominium Association, Inc.
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Law Offices of Lewis & Guerrero, P.A. (Stephen Lewis)
Result:
Dismissal
Summary:
This action involved a claim for alleged housing discrimination for refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation to a person with a disability relating to an emotional support animal, in violation of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601-3619 (“Fair Housing Act”) and Florida Statutes Section 760.20, et seq. (“Florida Fair Housing Act”). Our client, Mazal Investments 21, LLC, leased an apartment to Plaintiff in a condominium building. The co-defendant, Association, has a no pet rule. Shortly after moving in, the Association discovered Plaintiff had a dog and threatened to bring eviction proceedings against her. Our client had no objection to her emotional support animal as Plaintiff provided documentation for the reasonable accommodation. Our client then forwarded the documentation to the Association for approval. Plaintiff alleged that, despite being advised that her dog was an emotional support animal and being provided with supporting documentation, the Association refused to grant the accommodation. In addition, Plaintiff alleged that the Association’s staff confronted her several times insisting that the dog be removed from the property or face eviction. After completing the depositions of Association’s Board President and management supervisor and establishing that our client did not engage in any housing discrimination practices, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims against our client. Read More
Case:
Plaintiff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of 97-year-old, Deceased v. Jackson Plaza, Inc. d/b/a Jackson Plaza Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Ford, Dean & Rotondo, PA (William A. Dean; Michael Rotondo)
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:
Alleged Nursing Home Negligence; Plaintiff’s demand at trial was $350,000; Jury returned a defense verdict. On July 24, 2023, Managing Partner Michael J. Schwartz, Esq., and Senior Associate Frank Lacourt, Esq., obtained a Defense Verdict in a Nursing Home Negligence matter styled Plaintiff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of 97-year-old, Deceased v. Jackson Plaza, Inc. d/b/a Jackson Plaza Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant alleging nursing home negligence and violation of resident’s rights. The Defendant claimed that the Nursing Home staff failed to follow the attending physician’s orders to do a chest x-ray STAT, failed to timely report a lab result to the attending physician, and failed to recognize the Resident’s change in condition, resulting in the Resident’s death. The Resident in question was a 97-year-old admitted at Jackson Plaza from Memorial Hospital West after an 11-day admission for pneumonia and generalized weakness. The Resident also had a diagnosis of untreated leukemia. The Resident was admitted at Jackson Plaza for less than 24 hours.
At trial, the Plaintiff presented expert testimony from a Family Medicine Doctor who testified: (1) that the attending physician’s orders to do a chest X-ray were ignored by the nursing staff alleging that the order was entered upon admission to the Resident on 4/24/2019 around 3:00PM; (2) that the nursing home staff failed to immediately report the blood labs to the attending physician; and (3) that the nursing staff failed to recognized that the Resident was in respiratory distress. The Defendant presented evidence and expert witness testimony that proved that (1) the chest X-ray order was entered about the time the Resident’s condition changed on 4/24/2019, that the order was followed almost immediately by nursing staff, and that the chest X-ray was not done because the Resident was discharged via Fire Rescue before the mobile X ray company arrived; (2) the blood labs were done as ordered, and the results were received at the Facility’s fax machine 30 minutes before the Resident’s change in condition, and that it was reasonable for the results to take some time to be reported to the attending physician; and (3) the argument that the nurses failed to notice any respiratory distress was purely speculative, and not supported by evidence. Finally, the Defendant presented evidence that the Resident’s pre-existing comorbidities, including the untreated leukocytosis and previous pneumonia diagnoses, accompanied by the Resident’s advanced age, were the likely causes for the Resident’s change in condition and ultimately death. The Resident’s change in condition was unavoidable, and the Nursing Home was not negligent. The Jury agreed with the Defendant and rendered a verdict in two hours. Plaintiff’s demand at trial was $350,000.00. Read More.
Case:
Plaintiff v. Michael Hogan and Cynthia Hogan
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Jeffrey M. Byrd, Esquire
Result:
Favorable Verdict
Summary:
In closing, Plaintiff counsel demanded $19.5M – $19.9M, Jury returned the verdict of $610,633 and did not find that Plaintiff suffered a permanent injury, and did not award any non-economic damages.
Senior Partner, Juan Ruiz, Esquire, and Senior Associate, Matthew P. Funderburk, obtained a favorable verdict in a general liability, negligence matter styled Plaintiff v. Michael Hogan and Cynthia Hogan. Plaintiff filed suit against Michael Hogan and Cynthia Hogan for personal injury damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on February 17, 2016. Plaintiff alleged that as a result of this, low speed, low impact, rear end collision, she suffered multiple disc herniations in her cervical and lumbar spine. She also alleged she suffered a traumatic brain injury. This matter was tried in the Circuit Court, for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in in for Orange County, Florida. Negligence was admitted on the part of the defense, and the matter proceeded to trial on medical legal causation and damages.
At trial, Plaintiff attempted to advance the traumatic brain injury theory through the testimony of the treating neurologist, Dr. Marc Sharfman. The defense demonstrated through the testimony of the Plaintiff that there were no cognitive deficits, or any indication of a traumatic brain injury present despite allegations to the contrary. Defense experts, Dr. Kevin Cox, Orthopedic Surgery, and Dr. Paul Koenigsberg, Radiology, Opined that the need for Plaintiff‘s surgery was related to chronic and degenerative/pre-existing conditions.
In closing, Plaintiff counsel demanded $19,500,000 – $19,900,000. the defense “anchored” their closing argument with a figure of $17,250 representing the post-accident, conservative care and treatment. After deliberating for 70 minutes, the jury returned the verdict of $610,633 representing $360,633 in past medical expenses and $250,000 in future medical expenses. The jury did not find Plaintiff suffered a permanent injury, and therefore did not award any non-economic damages. Read More
Case:
Plaintiff v. CWC Transport
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Morgan & Morgan (David Henry)
Result:
Favorable Verdict
Summary:
On October 6, 2023, Partners Jim Sparkman, Esq., Meghan Theodore, Esq., and Matthew Moschell, Esq., obtained a favorable verdict in trucking liability matter styled Plaintiff v. CWC Transport. Sparkman (Boca Raton), Theodore and Moschell (Tampa) defended a gasoline tanker company and its driver against a $3 million dollar claim with a cervical disc replacement. The jury found the plaintiff 65% at fault (the defense urged 50%), reduced the medical bills from $125,000 to $95,000, found no permanent injury, and rejected the 57-year-old parks and recreation supervisor’s claim for $171,000 in future life care damages. The team defended this low speed, sideswipe impact that occurred by gas pumps with a neurosurgical CME, an interventional radiological expert, and a biomedical engineer. The Plaintiff presented a chiropractor and a medical doctor, an Oxford trained trauma surgeon, and a life care planner. Read More.
Case:
Jose Martinez v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Martin & Randolph PLLC (Sonya P. Randolph)
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:
Three-day jury trial; alleged water leak to a hallway bathroom and alleged drain line failure — Jury returned Defense Verdict
On August 18, 2023, after a three-day jury trial, Miami Partners Otto Espino, Esq., and Cristina Sevilla, Esq., obtained a full defense verdict in matter styled Jose Martinez v. Defendant Insurance Company. The lawsuit was based on a denied claim and arose due to an alleged water leak sustained by the Defendant’s Insured (Jose Martinez) to a hallway bathroom where he alleged the drain line had failed. The Insured gutted the bathroom prior to the carrier’s field inspection. The Insured also alleged the same drain line failure caused a backup in the adjoining kitchen, damaging his kitchen cabinets.
Defendant contended they were prejudiced by the Insured’s failure to provide the property for inspection before gutting the run and trenching the floor to remove the case iron drain lines. Defendant also defended the denial by arguing cause of loss was excluded per the constant and repeated seepage provision in its policy. This exclusion was based on the remaining building materials that were not removed from the hallway bathroom (i.e. wall studs) and based on the condition of the adjoining kitchen.
At trial, Defendant presented the evidence gathered during both its field inspection and engineering inspection. Mr. Espino successfully argued the condition of the bathroom was sufficient to determine the policy’s exclusion for constant and repeated was the actual cause of the Insured’s claim, and not the alleged failed drain line. The jury’s verdict found the exclusion had been properly enforced and there was no breach of contract. The verdict did not reach the question of any post-loss violations, avoiding any appellate issues related to those portions of the trial. After an hour of deliberation, the jury fully agreed and entered a full defense verdict. Read More.
Case:
Strangi, Robin and John v. Atlantic Southern Sealcoating and Paving, LLC
Practice Area:
Premise Liability, Personal Injury
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Law Offices of Craig Goldenfarb, Esq. (Paul McBride) / Kelley Kronenberg (Maura Krause)
Result:
Motion for Final Summary Judgment granted
Summary:
Stuart Partner Nora Bailey, Esq., prevailed on a Motion for Summary Judgment in a premises liability/personal injury matter styled Strangi, Robin and John v. Atlantic Southern Sealcoating and Paving, LLC. Our client, who was contracted to sealcoat and stripe the parking lot at a gas station, was sued for personal injuries after Plaintiff slipped on a painted portion of the lot more than four months after our work was completed. We moved for summary judgment based on the Slavin doctrine and argued that Plaintiff was impermissibly stacking inferences to prove her case. The case was made difficult by the fact that it became evident through discovery that our client had inadvertently used the wrong paint as required under the contract with the gas station, who accordingly joined in Plaintiff’s opposition to our Motion for Summary Judgment. Nevertheless, the Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to prove that using the right paint would have prevented Plaintiff’s fall and granted summary judgment on all counts. Read More.
Case:
Jessica Andrade v. Gladewind Heights Homeowners Association, Inc.
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
The Right Law Firm (Bradley Denniston)
Result:
Motion for Strike
Summary:
On July 19, 2023, Senior Partner Allison Janowitz, Esq., prevailed on a Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s Complaint based on Fraud on the Court in a trip and fall matter styled Jessica Andrade v. Gladewind Heights Homeowners Association, Inc. Plaintiff filed suit against Gladewind Heights Homeowner’s Association for injuries she sustained as a result of a trip and fall. Plaintiff claimed injuries to her right shoulder, right knee and back, in the amount of an estimated $200,000. Plaintiff specifically claimed that she sustained injuries limiting her ability to bend over, carry groceries and other items, and function without a motorized cart at the grocery store. Essentially, Plaintiff testified that if it did not involve her sitting down, she could not do it. Surveillance found the Plaintiff grocery shopping for several days without the use of any assistive devices and bending over on the ground.
The Court found that the Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her limitations were contradicted by the surveillance videos, and that with her testimony, the Plaintiff set into motion an unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the Judicial System’s ability to impartially adjudicate a matter. Read More.
Case:
You Restoration LLC a/a/o Ali Althis Bastardo v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Florida Insurance Law Group, LLC.
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:
Fort Lauderdale Junior Partner Jeremy Fischler, Esq., secured a dismissal in the First-Party Property matter styled You Restoration LLC a/a/o Ali Althis Bastardo v. Defendant Insurance Company. Defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in which it argued that the Defendant made full payment under the Policy’s Managed Repair Program. Specifically, the Plaintiff performed water mitigation services on behalf of the Insured, and received a partial payment after carrier review of the estimate. The Insured thereafter rejected the carrier’s offer to utilize the Managed Repair Program, thereby limiting the claim under the Policy to $10,000.00. The carrier sent the balance of the Policy limits to the Insured. Plaintiffs argued that this payment, made after the carrier was notified of the water mitigation services, could not have discharged the carrier’s obligations to pay the full invoice presented by Plaintiffs. The day before the hearing, Plaintiffs advised that they would abandon the case and submitted a dismissal. Read More.
Case:
Plaintiff v. Smith Transportation, Inc., et al.
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Hoskins Turco Lloyd and Lloyd
Result:
Motion to Dismiss Granted
Summary:
Stuart Partner Nora Bailey prevailed on a Motion to Dismiss in a trucking/personal injury matter styled Plaintiff v. Smith Transportation, Inc. Our client, a transportation broker, was sued for personal injuries after the Plaintiff was injured while unloading a truck carrying a load that our client had brokered. We obtained a dismissal of the counts against our client via a Motion to Dismiss. Our Motion was based upon the fact that the tort claims against our client arose from services provided as a transportation broker and were accordingly preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). The trial court agreed and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims against Smith Transportation in their entirety. Read More.
Case:
Maria Mejia v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Your Insurance Attorney
Result:
Dismissal/Walk-Away
Summary:
Partner Jeremy Fischler obtained a favorable result in a first- party property matter styled Maria Mejia v. Defendant Insurance Company in the Circuit Court of Broward County Florida. Plaintiff reported a Hurricane Irma claim to Defendant in 2019, and Defendant denied the claim when the field adjuster could not identify a storm created opening.
Defendant pursued two primary defenses in the matter — first, that there was no storm created opening, and second, that late reporting prejudiced the investigation of the claim. In litigation, the Defendant was able to establish that while the loss was not reported until 2019, Plaintiff was aware of the damage in 2017. In that two-year period the Plaintiff made repairs to the Property, including the roof. Therefore, Defendant was able to argue that the investigation was prejudiced. Defendant was also able to document the Plaintiff’s continued inability to comply with discovery requirements.
A hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment was set for February 2023, with trial set for March 2023. Based on the Motion for Summary Judgment, combined with the well-documented inability of Plaintiff to comply with discovery, Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the matter with no money paid by Defendant. Read More.
Case:
Imperial Lakes Group, LLC et al v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Tabares Law, P.A.
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Imperial Lakes Group, et al v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for its claim for damage to its property resulting from Hurricane Irma. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Plaintiff lacked the requisite insurable interest at the time of loss. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Case:
Stephen Woodson v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Feldman & Lopez, P.A.
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Stephen Woodson v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for his claim resulting from a plumbing leak. Following the deposition of the insured, during which Mr. Teijelo secured favorable testimony in support of Defendant’s position that the damage at issue was pre-existing, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 - All rights reserved.
Martindale-Hubbell and martindale.com are registered trademarks, Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings is a trademark and Lawyers.com is a service mark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. AV, BV and CV are registered certification marks and AV Preeminent and BV Distinguished are certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. Copyright 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
by tdburns, llc. - website designer, ft. lauderdale, fl